I don’t think it’s a problem as long as it is divided into several parts. But now there is a problem that the v2 version of the table is actually very few, it is difficult for us to truly verify the stability of v2 in a certain version.
Or are there any points that can guide users to trigger the conversion from v1 to v2 by themselves? Ling Miao Zhao Chun <zh...@apache.org> 于2020年10月29日周四 上午9:58写道： > 陈明雨 <morning...@163.com> 于2020年10月29日周四 上午9:56写道： > > > I agree to disable the use of V1 storage format for newly created tables > > in version 0.14. > > > > > > But "automatically convert to V2" is a dangerous and time-consuming > > operation, we may need more discuss. > > > > > We can fiinish it when doing compaction, schema change. > > > Thanks, > Zhao Chun > > > > > > -- > > > > 此致！Best Regards > > 陈明雨 Mingyu Chen > > > > Email: > > chenmin...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > At 2020-10-29 09:48:25, "apache" <yang...@apache.org> wrote: > > >Hello everyone: > > >At present, our V2 storage format has been developed for a long time, > and > > V2 has many advantages that V1 does not have. The coexistence of V1 and > V2 > > brings a lot of code and cluster maintenance costs. > > >Therefore, I think the next version, that is, version 0.14 will disable > > the use of V1 storage format for newly created tables. In version 0.16, > the > > storage format of V1 will be automatically converted to V2. Finally, the > > support of V1 format will be completely removed in a later version. > > >
